Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

"I was surprised to eventually learn that (a) Christ’s message is one of love–even to love one’s enemies. This was not a message I heard anywhere in the hate spewed by the religious right and (b) not all Christians are like Robertson or Falwell." : politics

I agree with you on a) and b).

Robertson and Falwell should go to hell.

I think it's fair to say Christ was (strongly) against the torture of people. The GOP somehow became the party of "family values" AND TORTURE!

I think it's fair to say Christ was (strongly) against the torture of people. Where did you get that from?

He didn't seem to object to his father torturing people?

The New Testament is like a heartfelt apology for the Old Testament - excepting that wacky Revelation ending.

We can only speculate as to whether Roberston and Falwell will go to hell, but we can see for ourselves whether they bring it here.

Well according to the words of Jesus, Robertson an Falwell will go to hell, because they are/were both extremely wealthy men. "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." -Luke 18:25, Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25

Two things here. First, it says 'easier' but not impossible (OK I know you can't actually fit a camel through a needle's eye but as far as I have ever heard it is just an example of something REALLY hard).

Clearly being wealthy hampers one's ability to be spiritual, but does not instantly condemn him to hell. Also, from Wikipedia Another common explanation of the figure, is that Jesus was referring to a certain gate in Jerusalem called Needle's Eye.

This entry-point was built like the eye of a needle and so low that a camel could pass only if it entered kneeling and unencumbered with baggage.

The lesson would then be that an eternal inheritance awaits those who unburden themselves of sin, and in particular, the things of this world.

Also, kneeling represents submission and humility, which are required to enter into heaven.

Although there is no historical evidence that such a gate ever existed, through frequent repetition the idea has attained the status of virtual dogma in some circles.[4] Clearly not proven, but an interesting thought.

Only by letting go of your wealth (not letting it own you) can you get into heaven.

Hell doesn't exist.

Jails exist.

This is my beef with western ideology.

The message THE BIBLE AND JESUS teaches is one of love and peace (love thy neighbor as thyself and turning the other cheek) however religious extremists in america have a giant ego that makes them totally blind to their own arrogance about the truth of a book thats several thousand years old written by sheep herders convinced that God was talking to them.

Now don't get me wrong I have read the bible and it has some INCREDIBLE wisdom for life, behavior, and relationships.

However there are many dated ideas, and any logical person should be able to see past these flaws and get to the core of the message, which is to love and spread love, to EVERYONE!

Arguing over the truth of a particular creed or religion is just absurd and going against what the religion is about.

So lets love each other like we love ourselves and live life to the fullest!

Jesus explicitly stated that killing children and beating slaves was justified.

Then that is what we must do.

Are you a child?

No, he was speaking figuratively, as a challenge to those who complained about his interpretations of the law.

You can only believe that if you (a) refuse to read the context, (b) really, really want to twist the words into a lie, and/or (c) are mentally about 13 years old.

From previous dealings I've had with this individual, I can attest that it's all of the above.

Ad hominem. You have nothing.

How can you claim to be able to translate the word of god into something that he didn't intend?

If god meant don't kill people who work on the sabbath (Exodus 31 verse 15: "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD.

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."), then god wouldn't have fucking said to kill anyone who works on the sabbath. It's you fucking hypocritical Christians who pick and choose what you want from the Bible, and then call yourself a Christian, when in reality, you are not a Christian, you are a secular citizen who has been brainwashed by your parents to believe in a lie.

You really shouldn't be down-voted for this.

Just because it is uncomfortable does not make it wrong.

Jesus did teach love and peace.

But some portions of the gospels also have messages that are as militant as some of the worst parts of the old testament.

Which is why the Bible must be ignored and thrown away.

Roberton, Fallwell and the other right-wing hate mongers aren't Christians, they are "christians™." Jesus warned about them saying that we should look at the "fruit" (deeds) of those who claim to be good pious people, because often they're "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones."

I don't think so.

Falwell and Robertson are interpreting the Bible much more truthfully than the lovey-dovey Christians that talk endlessly about Jesus. Such nice people love to pull out the bits of the Bible that reinforce their existing views.

The Christians who talk about Jesus are typically these kinds of people.

They are politically liberal, most likely, they donate time or money to various good causes, they don't like war. And that's an important part of what Jesus said, and Jesus is an important part of the Bible. But there is another - and I'd argue much lengthier - part of the Bible that preaches exactly what Robertson and Falwell preach.

I'm not talking about the Old Testament, either. The concept of Hell is a purely NT creation.

Homophobia is common (and never directly opposed by Jesus).

Slavery is common (and actually embraced by Jesus).

Anti-woman attitudes are reinforced.

And so on. The simple fact of the matter is that the people who put so much emphasis on Jesus are doing two very dishonest things: They are ignoring much larger parts of the Bible, both OT and NT, that seemingly oppose Jesus' teachings, and they pretend that Jesus preached love for everyone, not just his fellow Jews, which is why they are also confused when the message of hate permeating the rest of the Bible appears to be in contrast. Once you understand this last point, the disparity between Jesus "love of everyone" and Paul's disgusting homophobia, for example, evaporates. And this is why Robertson and Falwell, as much as I despise their political and religious beliefs, are at least being honest and consistent. Liberal Christians have to understand that their beliefs are the result of secularization, not of finally (and coincidentally!) coming to the correct interpretation of the Bible after all these centuries.

You have two types of "Christians" in this world.

You have the ones that want to be more like Jesus and use the bible as a way to understand better what he was like. Then you have those that want to follow the Bible and the parts about Jesus are just a minor part that is merely there to be interpreted.

Falwell and Robertson are merely Bible interpreters.

These kinds of Christians really only use religion to justify their actions and agendas, good or bad.

The above is just as shallow as Mr.

Robertson and Falwell...

Just as impious and just as self-serving.

I wanted to list the reading mistakes and cultural shallowness but it got too long. Honest and consistent enemies are fun, aren't they?

Especially, if you get to paint them with the brush you want. If you feel your enemies please you by their simplicity then the likely problem is in the eye of the beholder.

Http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8r33o/i_was_surprised_to_eventually_learn_that_a/c0a66i7

Actually, Jesus DID preach love for everyone, and not just his fellow Jews.

Hence the parable of the Good Samaritan. The New Covenant brought by Christ replaces the covenant between God and Abraham found in the OT.

The Bible itself tells us the rules of the OT need no longer apply: in Romans Ch.

14, and in Peter's vision from God making clear that one need not be a Jew (and thus bound by Jewish law) in order to be a Christian. The real key, though, is that we are not required to read either the OT or the NT literally.

Jesus taught with parables, and we can therefore learn that the literal truth of the story is simply an irrelevant side issue.

The real lesson(s) can be gleaned without regard for literal truth. Robertson and Falwell may very well be honest and conistent in their interpretations -- but other Christians can reach opposite conclusions with equally honest and consistent interpretations.

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.

He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matthew 15:4-7 "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it." - Luke 12:47 So, child murder and slave beating is preaching love?

No wonder Christianity gets such a bad rap.

You ignore that which refutes your claims!

You keep wanting to take literally Christ's hyperbole and other figures of speech.

He was chiding the Pharisees for their own hypocrisy, pointing out that there were parts of the "law" that even they did not follow. Why do you have so much hostility for Christianity, that you are determined to portray it as evil?

If Jesus chastised the Pharisees for not following God's will regarding what to do about children who curse at their parents, then he is not denying that you are supposed to kill children who curse at their parents, he is emphasizing it! Why do you have so much hostility for Christianity, that you are determined to portray it as evil? Because it is evil.

You are correct.

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

They certainly have a different understanding of Christianity than I do, and I oppose virtually all of their policies, but I do not have the right or the power to say they are not Christians.

Exactly. Jesus' message is love, but only to fellow Jews, not to other humans in general: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Luke 19:27 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.

He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matthew 15:4-7 "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it." - Luke 12:47 EDIT: WOW, look at all the downmods I got for simply showing that Jesus was not at all peaceful. You Christians would make me laugh, if your crazy beliefs about the world didn't cause so much death and destruction.

That Quote: was part of a parable Jesus was telling and is what the "king" in the parable was saying.

I totally don't understand the parable, but the direct Quote: isn't really accurate either.

Here is the parable, as I said it makes no sense to me, maybe its a translation issue..

Shrugs. “A prince went to a distant country to be appointed king and then to return.

13He called ten of his servants and gave them ten coins.[k] He said to them, ‘Invest this money until I come back.’ 14But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation to follow him and to announce, ‘We don't want this man to rule over us!’ 15“After he was appointed king, the prince[l] came back.

He ordered the servants to whom he had given the money to be called so he could find out what they had earned by investing.

16The first servant[m] came and said, ‘Sir, your coin has earned ten more coins.’ 17The king[n] said to him, ‘Well done, good servant!

Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.’ 18“The second servant[o] came and said, ‘Your coin, sir, has earned five coins.’ 19The king[p] said to him, ‘You take charge of five cities.’ 20“Then the other servant[q] came and said, ‘Sir, look!

Here's your coin.

I've kept it in a cloth for safekeeping 21because I was afraid of you.

You are a hard man.

You withdraw what you didn't deposit and harvest what you didn't plant.’ 22The king[r] said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you evil servant!

You knew, did you, that I was a hard man, and that I withdraw what I didn't deposit and harvest what I didn't plant?

23Then why didn't you put my money in the bank?

When I returned, I could have collected it with interest.’ 24“So the king[s] told those standing nearby, ‘Take the coin away from him and give it to the man who has the ten coins.’ 25They answered him, ‘Sir, he already[t] has ten coins!’ 26‘I tell you, to everyone who has something, more will be given, but from the person who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.

27But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!’”26

Parable of a King that Jesus spoke approvingly of, in order to liken his own claim to leadership.

The parables frequently used material wealth as a metaphor for spiritual wealth.

Unlike material wealth, however, spiritual wealth is not a "zero sum" game.

You can give away spiritual wealth without losing any.

I think many Christians would think this is a standard interpretation of the parable. This parable is speaking of Jesus, the prince who leaves to become king (i.e.

Leaves after his resurrection and returns at the second coming) and leaves his disciples/followers to stick around and do his work for him. Various of his servants are given certain amounts of gifts to use and the expectation that they will increase the gifts.

The evangelical interpretation of this is that they will bring in converts.

It kind of mixes the metaphor though. At the end of days, then they are brought in for judgment.

Those disciples who bring back more will be given much more in the next life.

The disciple who did not increase his spiritual wealth will have his gifts taken away from him. Of course in the end, those who reject Christ will be punished for their unbelief. Maybe that helps.

I think it is a standard interpretation of the parable.

Dangit you edited your post after I replied, and added two more Quote: s.

The second Quote: of yours he was talking about hypocrisy when people were criticizing his followers for not following exact rules he was pointing out they don't follow the rule of stoning children.

But you knew that.

Similar issue with the third Quote: , out of context.

If Jesus said it is hypocritical of the Pherisees to chastise him for not washing his hands, because they don't kill their children for being disobedient, then that means Jesus condones killing children for being disobedient! The third Quote: is not "out of context".

The context is contained in the passage.

A slave who refuses to "do his duty" should be beaten by their masters.

Not only does Jesus condone beating slaves, he also condones slavery itself. It's so weak and pathetic that the only defense you have against these criticisms is "out of context".

Pray tell, what is the context that I am missing?

The context that I should ignore these parts because it makes Jesus look bad?

Is that it?

No, you don't get to read these out of context and then tell Christians what they mean. In the Gospels, Jesus spoke figuratively more than he spoke literally.

If you are not deliberately misconstruing these passages, then your ignorance is showing.

I did not read these Quote: s out of context. In the Gospels, Jesus spoke figuratively more than he spoke literally. No, he spoke literally.

You are treating what he said figuratively because it allows you to ignore the fact that what he was really about was hatred and violence.

Being a christian and advocating war(even a necessary or justified one) are completely at odds with each other.

Not necessarily. Many Christians would agree with you, but there are other Christians who came up with the "Just War Doctrine." In essence, you should not resort to violence to defend yourself ("turn the other cheek"), but you can resort to violence to defend others (e.g., children). On the other hand, I have heard of at least one scholar who claims we are completely misconstruing the "turn the other cheek" injunction.

When considered in light of customs and taboos regarding the left/unclean hand (used for personal hygeine) and the difference in cultural significance between a forehand slap and a backhand, the injunction could be construed as a passive-aggressive act of defiance or civil disobedience.

I'm not sure I understand this completely, but it is interesting. edit for spelling only

And the fruit of the Spirit is love. Just in case anyone was wondering.

And the fruit of the Spirit is love. Why cut it short? But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

Against such things there is no law. Full passage

Love is the shorthand: "It can happen that when we are at prayer some brothers come to see us.

Then we have to choose, either to interrupt our prayer or to sadden our brother by refusing to answer him.

But love is greater than prayer.

Prayer is one virtue amongst others, whereas love contains them all." -- John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, 26th step "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.

And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” -- Matthew 22:36-40

Paul did warn about the coming apostasy, that in the last days, people would be "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." It's from his second letter to Timothy, Chapter 3.

Many of his interesting prophecies he wrote about are undeniably happening today, moreso than ever before, more people than ever before are acting as he foresaw.

Does that mean the end is near?

Who knows, only Jesus does, for no man knows the day or hour of his return.

If you want to discover Christianity in America, don't look on the internet.

Exactly. jesus seemed like a guy i could blaze it with and have really interesting conversations.

Well, maybe not the part about his dad being god, but maybe about corruption, greed, and stuff like that.

Dude Jesus was totally turned sticks into spliffs at one point, I think it just didn't get written down because anyone there forgot.

They didn't forget, exactly, but they ran short of rolling papers and lit up the scrolls.

Then, when they all went out to get more scrolls, they got hungry instead.

This is the most stoned comment I have ever seen on Reddit.

The part about his dad being god He would probably phrase it in terms of your dad being God.

You don't need religion to spread love and understanding.

It could be argued that you don't need religion to spread love and understanding.

Some people may require a first-cause for morality, though.

I don't judge them any more than I do people who wear glasses or take allergy medication...

Unless they start legislating their morality.

It could be argued that you don't need religion to spread love and understanding. It's a fact.

There's no need to soften it.

You don't need religion to spread love and understanding, period, and religion often hampers this. There can be no better example than the reproduction issue or the LGBT issue of religion stunting or perverting the moral growth of people.

I believe you misunderstand me.

Clearly, love and understanding can be spread without religion.

I'm just arguing that some people may require more than secular humanism, and religion (in whatever form) fills that for them.

Providing that their spirituality doesn't impact myself or society in a negative manner, I could care less what they believe.

I'm just arguing that some people may require more than secular humanism, No you aren't.

You're assuming it, but you aren't actually arguing it and your glancing over the obvious issues where religion clearly harms moral growth. Providing that their spirituality doesn't impact myself or society in a negative manner, could care less what they believe. Providing that poisonous snakes don't bite, I could care less about them living in my house.

Your glancing over the obvious issues where religion clearly harms moral growth. And what are these "obvious" issues?

Are you honestly arguing that all spirituality will have a negative impact on personal morality?

Like that beast Ghandi? You clearly have an agenda, and that's ok with me...

But you sound a little hysterical when you compare all spiritual people to poisonous snakes.

And what are these "obvious" issues? There can be no better example than the reproduction issue or the LGBT issue of religion stunting or perverting the moral growth of people. I put it in bold this time in hopes that will help you. You clearly have an agenda, and that's ok with me...

But you sound a little hysterical when you compare all spiritual people to poisonous snakes. You clearly have an agenda, and that's ok with me...

But you sound a little brain damange when you can't understand a simple analogy.

I'll break it down further: Religion already has negative impacts on society.

In the context of this discussion you continually choose to ignore that reality and talk about hypotheticals that don't, can't, and won't exist (like poisonous snakes that won't bite.

I'm not comparing all "spiritual" people to snakes, I'm saying your point sounds as stupid and oblivious as someone who wants to buy a few pet cobras.

No, JohnHyperion.

You are still arguing causation without proof.

Religion correlates with the problems you identify, but that is not the same as causation.

It seems to me that you're just repeating yourself.

To sum up: "The moral growth of people is harmed by religion stunting or perverting the moral growth of people." Still, I don't disagree with you that many people have taken religion to be a moral mandate which disagrees with your own.

And denying rights is frankly a disgusting example of that.

But I disagree that I'm glossing over or ignoring the fact.

I had simply stated that it is possible to be loving and progressive, while needing religion as a personal moral framework .

How someone could disagree with that is honestly beyond me. You clearly have an agenda, and that's ok with me... No agenda here.

I'm just a liberal atheist who believes that people are people, and how they choose to interact with their fellow man is more important than whether they claim affiliation with a religious order. Religion already has negative impacts on society. No, people have negative impacts on society.

You're blaming the gun for shooting someone.

That people are religious may or may not contribute to the harm that they do.

Rev. Dr. King? Good guy.

Fred Phelps? Douchebag extraordinaire.

Minister Fred Rogers?

I'd have invited him over.

Jerry Fallwell? Not so much. We could play this all day long, but I hope my point is clear.

Blaming society's ills on religion is ignorant scapegoating.

That is not to forgive religion for the harm caused in its name, but to point out that some people will always act out of fear and self-interest, God or not.

It seems to me that you're just repeating yourself. I copy and pasted exactly what I said previously because you chose to ignore it. Blaming society's ills on religion is ignorant scapegoating. Getting that from my post is poor reading.

I'm blaming religion for what it can be blamed for.

Not all of society's ills.

I gave examples. You can choose to ignore them if you'd like, but they aren't going away.

As long as look to a book written by ignorant people with an archaic, perverse view on morality religion will cause problems with our moral growth as a society.

To deny this is to deny reality.

The problems you have pointed out are caused by people's beliefs.

You can be atheist and pro-life as well as anti-gay marriage.

Correlation is not causation.

Which religion, all religion?

People hamper the spread of love and understanding.

Often religious people, and their religion is a contributing factor.

As with pretty much anything we "know" from our experiences in dealing with people at large, the view that Christians are a bunch of hate-mongers is both unfortunate and inaccurate.

It is the same thing we see with other religions, especially Islam.

A very few radical, extreme fundimentalists make a bad name for the whole group.

I doubt a survey of several thousand Christians chosen randomly (not from biased web sites) would say that they are glad Tiller was shot or that they enjoy imagining him in hell.

He represented something that most Christians are very much against (killing another person) and I am sure none of them would consider him their favorite person.

But think about it.

If all Christians beleived that shooting another person over the abortion issue was justified by their religion, there would be no doctors performing abortions. The same can be said of Islam.

If you surveyed thousands of Muslims chosen at random, I doubt any of them would say that 9/11 was justified by their religion.

The vast majority were as shocked and dismayed as everyone else. Despite what Obama claimed recently, America really is a prodominately Christian nation.

If these are such common Christian views, then why is only one man being held up as a representative of them?

The truth is the vast majority of Christians see the shooter for what he is.

A murderer who needs to be tried and sentenced. If the religions of the world were judged by the beliefs and actgions of the vast majority of their members instead of the very few radical elements, we would find that we agree on things a whole lot more.

As with pretty much anything we "know" from our experiences in dealing with people at large, the view that Christians are a bunch of hate-mongers is both unfortunate and inaccurate. Straw man. The point is that the Christian religion itself is full of hatred and racism and violence.

It has nothing to do with Christians.

If Christians don't act violently, it is not because they are better Christians, it is because they are acting in better ways according to secular political philosophy, and ignoring the parts of Christianity that are evil.

No, the Christian religion is not full of hatred, racism and violence.

Those are attributes of some people who also call themselves Christian.

You have a correlation for those people, but there is also a correlation for people who are Christian and do not share those attributes.

You still don't get it do you?

I am not going by what this or that Christian said or did, versus what another Christian said or did, and then basing my judgment on that.

I am talking about the Christian religion itself. The Christian religion itself is codified in the Bible, for all Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God.

The Bible is what contains the Christian religion.

Therefore, in order to make judgments on the Christian religion, we have to read the Bible and understand what it says, not what Christians say. The undeniable fact is that the Bible is full of God explicitly sanctioning rape, genocide, infanticide, child abuse, torture, mutilation, and murder. Now, you are correct that many Christians today don't act like maniacal psychopaths, but that is not because they are acting like better Christians.

It is because they are acting according to secular philosophies that show these acts to be utterly evil and repulsive. You are LYING if you claim to really read the Bible and still tell me that it is not full of hatred, racism and violence.

It is full of evil, and that is why Christians around the world approve of the murder of innocent middle eastern civilians.

The reason Christians around the world are not rising up in opposition to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is precisely because they view the war as a fight for Christianity against Islam.

That is why people like Falwell and Robertson are the Christian's unofficial leaders of choice.

They are merely saying what most Christians believe to be true but are too frightened to say so publicly. I don't see any Christian leader that is truly about peace and understanding, that are more popular with Christians than assholes like Falwell and Robertson. There is a reason for that, and for some reason that makes you feel uncomfortable.

That's good, because your belief is based on nothing but hatred and violence.

Oh, I get it. You want to define the Christian religion in the worst possible way, so that you can freely condemn it.

That is intellectually dishonest, and it is inconsistent with the way most Christians understand Christianity.

You cannot define the entire Christian religion by your understanding of the Bible. First, many (perhaps most) Christians are not literalists.

We do not base our faith on the notion that the Bible can be treated like a history text or a science text.

Jesus taught with parables, so we learn (among many other things) that the literal truth of the story (if any) is largely irrelevant to the lesson(s) to be gleaned. Second, most Christians understand that Christ brought a New Covenant replacing the original covenant between God and Abraham.

In addition, the NT reports that Peter had a vision from God specifically telling him that Christians do not have to first be Jews (and thus bound by Jewish law).

Then Paul's letter to the Romans (Ch.

14) confirms that Christians are free to choose the OT rules we want to follow -- if any. Read literally, the OT includes stories of hatred and racism, and there is certainly plenty of violence.

But those are not Christian values, just because they appear in the OT. edit for spelling only

Thank you. I'm sick of people pointing to the old testament for contradictions.

The old laws laid down there are null save the Ten Commandments, which all people can agree are an excellent set of rules the lead to better well being to all people if they are followed!

I do not even necessarily except the 10 Commandments.

Many of them are socially useful and nigh-universal, but others have limited use.

Certainly, Romans Ch.

14 does not give them special status, nor does Jesus.

The old laws laid down there are null Says the secularist. save the Ten Commandments, So we can still rape and have slaves?

Nothing in the ten commandments regarding these two things. which all people can agree are an excellent set of rules the lead to better well being to all people if they are followed! So we should really kill anyone who works on the sabbath?

Oh, I get it. You want to define the Christian religion in the worst possible way, so that you can freely condemn it. Nope.

I am not defining it at all.

I am merely relaying to you what is written.

You can ignore it if you want, but that doesn't mean you are being a better Christian, it means you are being a better citizen. That is intellectually dishonest, and it is inconsistent with the way most Christians understand Christianity. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore parts of the Bible that are clearly ludicrous for the sole reason that you want to continue to believe in a text that contains such ludicrousness. You cannot define the entire Christian religion by your understanding of the Bible. It is not my personal opinion or understanding.

It is what is written. First, many (perhaps most) Christians are not literalists. Which means they are not Christans.

They are Christians who live according to secular philosophy. Second, most Christians understand that Christ brought a New Covenant replacing the original covenant between God and Abraham. Are you saying God made a mistake?

Not sure why you're being downvoted, you're absolutely correct.

Private-Freedom is being downvoted because he is a troll who misconstrues figurative speech by quoting it out of context and then treating it as though Jesus meant it literally.

If you believe s/he is correct, then you need to get into the sources and the responses so you can see for yourself how wrong s/he is.

I am being downvoted by Christian trolls who hate being told that they believe in a hateful and bigoted text. I am not wrong, because I can read the English language.

I am quoting the Bible, and if you don't believe the Quote: s, that's fine, but then don't call yourself a Christian.

Call yourself a secular trained citizen who believes in a lie, and who has the self-righteous, sanctimonious douchebaggery pretentiousness to be able to translate the word of god into something that furthers your own pro-faith, anti-reason agenda of mental retardation.

I am getting downvoted by Christian trolls who have hijacked this thread.

"I don't get it. We hated all the right things..."

I've read the Bible, a lot.

I spent most of my childhood trying to escape the religion I was born into.

I've studied Islam, Judaism, and Christianity very thoroughly. The one thing I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt is that people are too stupid to understand the messages being conveyed in these religions.

Too stupid by far. Christians, in particular American Christians, have a very flawed understanding of the messages in Christianity.

What Would Jesus Do indeed... It seems to me as if none of them have even read about Jesus in their Bible at all.

He was a peace loving hippie.

He wanted desperately for people to just treat eachother right.

His method for doing this was to selflessly do for others. When this fake Christians say he would have been OK with torture and this war, I just want to tell them to pull out their fucking bible and read every verse about Jesus and his actions and message. He would probably have gone to Iraq and spent time with terrorists.

He would have sought out the people that attacked America on 9/11 and asked them to join us in America.

He would have apologized to Osama Bin Laden and offered to help him in his agenda so that he wouldn't feel the need to try and kill Americans. And what would probably happen is that I would be called a traitor and told that I was wrong about Jesus.

Because in their minds, Jesus advocates violence, revenge, and abuse.

People are too stupid to understand the messages being conveyed in these religions It's kind of pathetic how often Jesus is said to have explained something over and over, to an un-comprehending audience.

And I imagine it would be more effective to hear such things first-hand, than to read a translation (maybe not even direct) of a redaction (i.e., the synoptic gospels from the Q gospel) of a translation (Aramaic to Greek) of an oral account of those teachings.

Actually, I think you're being unfair on the original listeners.

Looking back we can see a lot more and much of our understanding of what he said is coloured by knowing what came afterwards. We may say, now, why didn't they understand X.

But if we had been there, my guess is that most of us wouldn't have understood it either, because we were so much in the society that much of his radical message would have just passed us by, probably with comments like "Did he really say that?

He couldn't have meant it!"

That's part of the reason why The Book of Enoch is important - it shows a lot of context for Jesus' teachings.

However, the church wouldn't condone that because they didn't feel the Book of Enoch fit with their ideals. And polyparadigm is correct - the original "writers" were dead when the gospels we are familiar with were actually written by scribes, who changed a couple things (as evidenced by examination of the original documents).

However, we don't have all the information on this, so we can't quite be sure of the accuracy of these conclusions. Anyway, you could always go with a transcendentalist approach and appreciate the message even if the events themselves never occurred.

Not what the church states, but rather the message of peace, love, and enlightenment, absolute goodness, all that stuff.

The parts the church wants to put in to maintain power and order are no longer necessary.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Plausibly deniable.

Could be interpreted as the words of the master in the parable and not as jesus' own view.

Actually jesus was the one who gave us the concept of hell.

He said, believe everything i say without proof or you will burn forever in a lake of fire. prior to jesus, judaism did not have this charming feature.

Http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html Good reading material. You have to understand that the Bible we have today and what Christians Quote: is an edited translation of a rewrite of a translation of another translation of an oral tradition.

It is a very insane game of telephone.

Ya, and conveniently the translated version that you think is the correct one is the one that makes you look the most correct. Nice honesty!

I don't know if you're agreeing with what I said or trying to be a douchebag. I don't think any version of the Bible is correct.

I think most of it is full of shit.

But I read it anyway because I wanted to know more about it rather than mouth off about stuff I barely know.

I don't think any version of the Bible is correct. I agree.

It's not correct because god does not exist. I think most of it is full of shit.

But I read it anyway because I wanted to know more about it rather than mouth off about stuff I barely know. Then why do you still make false statements about the Bible and mouth off about it?

You have to understand that the Bible we have today and what Christians Quote: is an edited translation of a rewrite of a translation of another translation of an oral tradition. That only applies to the Old Testament.

The New Testament, is, for the most part, almost completely intact, and indeed, you haven't contradicted capnza's good point that hell does not even exist in the Old Testament, and the concept of eternal punishment only appears with that of Jesus -- as Christopher Hitchens likes to joke, "gentle, meek, and mild".

The New Testament, is, for the most part, almost completely intact The Gospels are indeed intact, if by "intact" you mean "written decades after Jesus' death." Tell me, do you think that Tom Cruise is a reliable source as to what L.

Ron Hubbard did in his life?

Now we're just getting into the point that the whole book is already a clusterfuck -- we don't even know that Jesus is a real person, so this is all moot. My point was only concerning what JesusSaidSo was saying about translations, and that translation-of-a-translation thing only applies to the Old Testament.

(Greek / Hebrew / English)

Actually, I work with the Hebrew.

No serious translator would work with the Greek, which was translated from the Hebrew.

None of the accepted (by Jews and/or Protestant Christians) Canon was written in Greek.

Some of the intertestemental apocrypha (accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and probably the Orthodox Churches) was written in Greek. BTW, you do realise that the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) has a transmission error rate over time of around 1/10th of any other known volume.

Now, granted that these numbers are not a perfect exact science but scholars are fairly clear about where the errors are and how many there are.

They just tend to disagree about what the correct reading is!

Torah = Old Testament.

You're agreeing with me.

No. Torah =/= Old Testament. TeNaCH = Old Testament. Torah.

Neviim. Cetuvim. (Not quite sure how to transliterate this one.

I only know it in Hebrew.) Oh, and Torah also means roughly law, but its meaning is a lot broader than the English concept of law.

It's nice to hear religious information from a true scholar.

Did you read the article he linked?

It is long, but that is because it is detailed, painstaking scholarship -- and it explains how the translation in the KJV misconstrued Jesus to create this false idea of eternal punishment in line with traditions that did not originate in the Bible. In other words, you're doing it wrong.

I didn't, actually -- clicked on the link, read a bit, but it is hella long.

I'll take a look at it. However, that still doesn't contradict the other point about the oral tradition -->

Translation -->

Translation -->

Translation thing.

That only applies to the Old Testament, NOT the NT. Also, while I'll still read the article, that still doesn't make sense at first glance -- there are other forms of the NT that still include the concept of hell, completely apart from KJV.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, there are a couple of shorter sections where the heading identifies a summary of the preceding. Not every scholar agrees on every point.

It is hard to be absolute or certain about any of it.

That's why I get resentful when non-Christians try to tell me what the Bible says in absolute, no-room-for-disagreement terms. Not sure where you get the idea that the NT is largely intact.

Many scholars concede, for example, that the 4 canonical Gospels were all written well after the life of Jesus, and thus reflect oral traditions as well as some cultural shifts before they were written down -- and to my knowledge, none of the NT books we use today are taken from "original" primary-source manuscripts. I'll grant you the NT books are probably more contemporary than the OT books, but that still leaves a lot of wiggle room.

And that's just the Canon.

There are loads of other non-Canonized texts out there that were passed along just as the Biblical texts were, they just didn't make the cut for mostly political reasons.

Hell was actually invented a little later by early Christians that were tripping on moldy Rye bread.

Follow the art and you will see the transformation of Christianity, it is pretty incredible.

Moldy Rye bread? Would that happen to be Ergot?

The precursor to LSD?

The bacteria in the fungus would make you hallucinate thus the saying "must have a spore" to mean the mold spores were screwing with their reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism

I know a lot of Christians today believe that hell is not fire and brimstone, but eternal darkness, loneliness, and emptiness, probably like drifting through the vacuum of space for eternity, except there are no planets, stars, nebula, etc, well you get my drift. A hot fire underground with screams of pain would at least be more interesting and probably less hellish for many.

The second book of Esdras, one of the non-canonical books of the Hebrew Bible, describes hell as a condition of estrangement from oneself, of utter confusion, despair and inner turmoil over a lack of connection to the world.

Heaven, by comparison, is described as a state of perfect awareness of oneself and others, and an abiding sense of connectedness to others and to God. None of this has anything to do with some celestial (or subterranean) location.

I find this very compelling.

(And, frankly, consistent with my own experience.)

I just want to tell them to pull out their fucking bible and read every verse about Jesus and his actions and message. OK. Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.

He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Matthew 15:4-7 "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it." - Luke 12:47 So, now that I took your fucking stupid advice and read what Jesus said, does this mean that I now have a carte blanche freedom to murder any child that curses at their parents, and to beat human slaves? Fuck off Christian freak of nature.

In civilized society, SECULAR philosophy is the way to go, not some primitive text written by a bunch of barbaric monkeys. Jesus was a tyrant, and you don't like it do you?

You can't see that Jesus was speaking hyperbolically, to make a point?

Are you familiar with reductio ad absurdum ?

Yes, and I am even more familiar with No True Scotsman.

Wow... you totally don't understand the concept of context and you pull the same shit that Christians do.

You Quote: one line and say "LOOK, LOOK HERE." Read the whole fucking thing. Jesus was not advocating killing disobedient children.

He was pointing out that the Pharisees weren't following their traditions either.

And that these traditions they ascribed to god were really rules that men made up anyway. You miss the whole point of it.

Lemme put it in 4chan terms so your retarded mind can wrap itself around it. Some religious dudes swing by and say to Jesus;

"Your followers are breaking god's rules!" So Jesus says, "I'm pretty sure you guys think God said to kill bad kids...

And you don't really follow that rule either.

And your rules are stupid anyway.

You made them up, not god.

Isaiah was right when he called you a bunch of hypocritical bitches." Did that help you understand the context at all?

No, because you totally changed the wording into that which furthers your agenda. Here, let me Quote: the entire length of the passage so that your weak mind can comprehend it a little better: "1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?

For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Jesus quite clearly states here that God commanded to honor your father and mother, and those that curse their mother or father should be killed. And what's this? And that these traditions they ascribed to god were really rules that men made up anyway. HAHAHAHAHAHA...OK, sure, if that makes it convenient for you.

Wherever it shows that God is an evil asshole, just claim that mortal men made the shit up.

Fuck dude. Like, do you really believe the shit that is coming out of your mouth? Your hypocrisy is astounding.

It's a shame that this subreddit has been hijacked by a bunch of Christian whackjobs who have time to kill spreading shit that is not true.

Again, you're totoally why people that don't believe in religion have problems arguing their case against Theists. You're an asshole. I'm agnostic, I personally don't believe in any religion but I can't 100% rule out the supernatural.

Yet you immediately jump to insult me. You're a hateful, hateful person and it sucks that your hatred is why you're an athiest.

Jesus would put a boot in Osama's ass, it's the American way.

Let's roll. Amen.

And amen.

You mean a sandal.

Heretic.

It seems to me as if none of them have even read about Jesus in their Bible at all.

He was a peace loving hippie. Except when it comes to fig trees, right?

Filthy figgots

And Samaritans. And Phoenicians, unless they admit that Jews are really fucking cool.

Then it's all like, "Shit, bitch, that's all I wanted to hear.

Your skank-puppy no longer has any of that demons-bullshit going down in her skull.

Yeah, I can do that shit.

Recognize."

I remember going to church service the Sunday after 9/11 and wondering if the minister would have the balls to ask the congregation to pray for Osama bin Laden.

He was a good guy and, I think, generally got the message of peace that is fundamental to Jesus' ministry.

But even he wasn't willing to go that far (assuming it even occurred to him).

At the church I went to, the evening of Sept 11, the congregation prayed for Osama bin Laden, quite movingly.

But then, this is a congregation that actually has been praying for their enemies for decades, so they were ready for it.

Jesus might have done that, but his father was one murdering bastard.

The Bible is full of weird shit.

You should read the story of Job. Basically Satan tricks god into fucking over an innocent man.

More like God and Satan make a bet over a man's soul and then slaughter his family as part of the bet.

There was no "tricking" of God, he was fully complicit.

But this story didn't literally happen.

The message trying to be conveyed in the linked article and in some of these comments is that one must think deeply about stories such as these. Really, the main point of the story of Job is an exploration of faith.

The bet between God and Satan, which you call dominion over his soul, is one decided by whether Job turns his back on God.

Regardless of the horrible events that occur, Job never abandons faith.

This is the crux of the story.

You may remember also that Job was in no way aware of this 'bet', so his actions were pure from his nature. As a story, this indicates that the core of the human being is good, and regardless of the trials faced in life, any person can remain true to this good nature.

The story is about not using the misfortunes that occur in your life as excuses to justify evil actions.

There are many lessons to be learned about humanity if you just peek below the surface. A benefit of telling this story with a named character, is that people can then relate to that person.

Now, when a misfortune occurs in one's life, that person can know that "Hey, at least it ain't as bad as what happened to old Job.

If he could stay true, I can as well."

Most Christians believe Paul's teachings more so than Jesus' and love the Old Testament in very thin slices (like the ten commandments that weren't ever actually written on stone...

Bring up the real ones from the stone around fundies for lots of fun).

Why isn't rape and slavery a part of the ten commandments?

Oh ya, I forgot, it's because god condones rape and slavery.

They only made Jesus seem nice so the Old Testament didn't seem so bad.

He would have apologized to Osama Bin Laden and offered to help him in his agenda so that he wouldn't feel the need to try and kill Americans. He would've loved Osama.

But I seriously doubt about the apologize part.

Jesus didn't give a rat's anal orifice about government or politics. Edit: Would've loved Osama as a person in spite of his horrendous actions.

Not loved what Osama has done.

This is a selective reading of the bible, because central to Christ's message is subservience to a hateful, spiteful, murderous, being who will torture you forever if you cross him. Robertson and Falwell aren't bad because they aren't "real" Christians.

They're just bad.

Following Christianity is no standard for goodness and never has been.

Only if you choose to interpret every aspect of Christianity in the worst possible way.

I can't stop you, but you are not convincing anyone.

Only if you choose to interpret every aspect of Christianity in the worst possible way. You didn't read my post, clearly, because I made no statement about every aspect of Christianity.

I only pointed out that some aspects are bad.

Are you denying that, "central to Christ's message is subservience to a hateful, spiteful, murderous, being who will torture you forever if you cross him." Because I can whip up some bible verses for you if you haven't read them. you are not convincing anyone. Umm...people are already convinced of this.

Everyone who describes themself as, "God-fearing."

Exactly. You are right, the Christian freaks here are wrong.

Now you are engaged in ad hominem attacks.

How old are you?

Let me help you out there: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html Although the phrase "ad hominem attack," as you use it, is absolutely meaningless, asking, "How old are you?" would probably be considered one.

You are either one of the most subjective people I've seen or one of the best trolls on the internet.

I'm sorry, but how dishonest do you have to be under an article that directly references Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to suggest that the bible is full of love and hugs and has none of the uglyness I described? Are you suggesting when they Quote: the bible, ad nauseum, they're just making it up?

That none of the anger and vengeance and fear is there?

Are you mad?

From MY interpretation of the bible, there is no reason to fear God as long as you as an individual act in a way that doesn't violate moral terms, be them derived from secular philosophies or the bible.

My view is definitely not shared by every Christian, but I believe it does cross the boundaries set by Scripture.

When it comes down to principles, no successful religions are founded on "hateful, spiteful, and murderous" intentions. There is ugliness within the bible.

God-fearing is more commonly used as a term of humility.

There is ugliness within the bible. Then don't call me a fucking troll for pointing out that it does exist. This is why I don't like to use the term "fundie", "moderate", and "liberal" Christian except with scare Quote: s.

As this thread has shown, it is just as easy to be as crazy, irrational, and "Jesus knows I'm right," about the love and hugs stuff as it is to be that way about the hating gays stuff.

It's all fundamentalism, just about different parts of the bible.

You're a troll in the way you (seemingly, may not be intended) call out every Christian as a follower of a crazy belief that is screwed up beyond repair.

You're actually accurate in saying I'm being irrational in saying "Jesus knows I'm right".

Note to that Christianity is a VERY general religion.

People choose what they want to agree or disagree with, myself included.

You're being overly aggressive in pointing out all the wrongs.

You're a troll in the way you (seemingly, may not be intended) This shows you don't even know what the word means and you should stop using it.

A troll is someone posting things to deliberately get a rise of people.

Things the troll does not really believe. It's pretty shitty for you to admit there is uglyness in the bible then call me a troll for...saying there is uglyness in the bible.

Your reaction is no different than Robertson's would be if you tried to point out the love and hugs stuff to him. That being the case, I have no interest in trying to reason with a fundamentalist of any flavor.

Have a good day.

More personal attacks and YOUR misdefinition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]" Your responses have been both inflammatory and controversial, with many attacks towards a specific group of people.

That is how you're a troll, flamebaiter, or however else you wish to label it.

Also my original post claimed you to be either "one of the most subjective people I've seen or one of the best trolls on the internet".

If you're actually trying to debate a point, fine.

The way you're posting, it feels a lot more likely that you're trolling.

If the latter is true, you're doing a really good job because I am starting to get frustrated over something minor like this.

-_-

Only if you choose to interpret every aspect of Christianity in the worst possible way. You mean the literal way? HAHAHAHAHA

Yes, literalism is the wrong way, when Christ spoke figuratively and spoke in parables.

So the old testament, you know, the one that God wrote, is all wrong?

I can't stop you At first, I read that as "I can't stomp you."

He doesn't need to convince anyone.

His message was one of love?

Are we reading the same bible? <Jesus> Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

-Matthew 10:34-36 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:18-20 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers;

Such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

-John 15:6 </Jesus> Jesus' message was, at best, inconsistent.

There's lots of great moral thinkers throughout the ages who didn't think they were the son of God or condemn people to hell.

Why do we have to keep on resurrecting Jesus?

Why do we have to keep on resurrecting Jesus? He started it!

Http://www.instantrimshot.com/

We read the same Bible, but educated Christians should read scripture in its historical and Biblical context, not by misleadingly excerpting Quote: s out of context.

Translation: Do not Quote: any passages that make Jesus look like the evil monster he was.

Only Quote: those passages that are consistent with secular philosophy, so that Christians can maintain more than a single shred of credibility.

To make this bullshit claim convincing, call those who ignore the evil parts "educated", and those who do not ignore the evil parts "quoting out of context".

Translation: When Christ was speaking figuratively, be sure to insist on taking him literally if that will further your agenda of denigrating Christianity.

Since Christ spoke figuratively much of the time, this is easy to do.

Re-translation: When Christ was speaking literally, be sure to insist on taking him figuratively if that will further your agenda of promoting an ideology based on hate.

Since Christ spoke literally much of the time, this is easy to do.

I meant the Quote: s to show that the NT does not condone "tolerating" other beliefs (something I think most people associate with love), or doing away with Mosaic law (which is pretty insane, and not very loving).

Other parts of the NT differ on that point. If you read it in the historical context, it doesn't apply to us anymore.

No, that was Jesus speaking to a primarily Jewish audience, telling them that following Christ meant higher standards, not lower ones, but telling them in ways that would communicate to that audience. After the resurrection, Peter had a vision from God making clear that all Christians need not first be Jews, and thus need not be bound by Jewish law.

Then Paul confirmed in his letter to the Romans (Ch.

14) that each Christian must decide for himself how many of the OT rules to follow (if any). Reading in historical context helps to find the universal lessons that DO still apply to us. edit for spelling only

Mmm... I don't think we're going to come to an agreement friend, but here goes. I don't think that you can lay claim to the "right way" to interpret the sword verses;

It's inspired results as vastly different as liberation theology and war.

If the bible is an inspired document, shouldn't it read just as clearly in today's context as then?

Anyway, I think those who want Christians to reject non-Christians would be justified in using this passage for support;

When I was a Christian, I remember it being for just that.

It doesn't teach conversation, reconciliation, or love, but rather dogmatic rejection. Yes, Romans says that the Law no longer applies, but all that says to me is that the NT contradicts itself.

I would assume this is the result of warring factions within early Christianity, particularly the Jewish Christians who supported the Gospel of Matthew above the others.

But the fact that Jesus condoned the OT law as righteous is, I think, abhorrent to any who has read the OT.

Moral relativism isn't an excuse.

Similarly when he doesn't say anything about slavery (many interpret this in an historical context, but if Jesus was stirring up trouble about all the other sin, couldn't he have mentioned that slavery was morally wrong?).

Actually, all superstitious people are alike in that they believe in magic and fairy tales.

And all atheists are alike, in that they all believe logic and empiricism will answer every question, no matter how subjective.

/irony

Christians aren't answering a subjective question.

They are making statements about the objective universe.

Some Christians treat the Bible as a science text.

Many of us do not.

I look to the Bible for spiritual answers, not physical answers.

That's because a substantial part of you has been enlightened by secular reasoning.

The fact that you don't take the Bible literally is proof that you don't take the Bible seriously.

Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

I suspect that he did not actually bring a sword, as that would have gotten him arrested.

So, just maybe, he was speaking figuratively.

If so, then you cannot really try to understand without considering that Quote: in its historical and Biblical context. Christ's exhortations to his disciples could easily be construed as a simple warning that, by teaching His Word, the disciples would be spreading conflict between those who believed and those who did not.

Hey hey hey, none of that here.

Remember, Christians are all hateful anti-intellectuals...

Upvoted for eliciting a genuine chuckle.

Thanks. Perspective is important.

Context is always better left out.

"Arise, Arjuna, O son of Bharatha, and with your sword discernment, slash delusion to pieces." -- The Baghavad Gita Swords ain't all bad.

Who cares if all christians are not exactly like them...

I'm still gonna treat you like you are and laugh at your misfortunes, asking you "what's wrong, did you not pray hard enough this time?" Since it's always "god was looking out for you," or "he heard your prayers,"when something good happens, or you escape an uncomfortable fate...

I will always be the first to let you know that you didn't pray hard enough this time...

You are all the same, die in a car fire.

BTW Downvote this for Jesus.

No, I'll downvote for bigotry and ignorance.

Then downvote Jesus, because Jesus was full of bigotry and ignorance.

It doesn't reflect well on the writer to say he was to "surprised to learn that not all..." What if I said I was surprised to learn that not all conservatives are like Ann Coulter, and not all liberals are like Michael Moore? This writer is publishing on the internet.

Can he not also read?

Can he not go visit his local church and meet some of his neighbors? Does he really accept without question, what gets beamed into his television from some corporate studio miles away?

I mean, <sarcasm>

We all know that people on TV - Bill O'Reilly for example - are honest and sincere, without any hidden agenda, right? My own hunch is that the writer is just using overstatement to gin up the debate.

But it likewise reflects poorly on moderate Christians, when we let the extremists grab the microphone. edit for spelling only

The core belief of Christianity is that you should love one another.

Not a bad premise for a religion, or living your life in my opinion.

Jesus transformed people through love.

See who he was hanging around so often?

Societal outcasts. Is this the sort of thing we see from today's politically-active, sanitized "Christian" organizations?

No. They're grabbing power (politically), and preaching a "gospel" of morality--not of grace and redemption.

Certainly not a message of love. Jesus was clearly relational, as relationship is how the power of love is transmitted to people.

If "Christians" would attempt to be relevant in today's society, it's the easiest thing in the world.

Simply love people as they are--embrace them.

It's silly, frankly, to place the burden of systematic morality on anyone not acknowledging such a thing.

Love does wonders in a world awash in despair.

There are many Christians who do exactly that, but we simply do not make headlines.

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about a guy that lived 2000 years ago.

Yeah but ... The "good" xtians are not roundly denouncing the "Hateful xtians". So fuck xtians of all flavors.

We are, but being calm and reasonable rarely gets the attention of the media.

So nobody hears us. edit for spelling only

I'll roundly denounce the "hateful Christian" ideology.

The good Christians aren't nearly as interested in fame, power, money, and recognition as the hateful ones.

So it makes sense you'd hear from them less.

"I was surprised to eventually learn that (a) Christ’s message is one of love–even to love one’s enemies." 1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema . Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Need I go on?

A Text without a Context is a Pretext for a Prooftext. Look at the context and you might find some enlightenment about why what you have written and what the article said are not incompatible. Being fair though, this is a lot of the problem with the way that the some on the Religious Right in the US appear to use the Bible and so can prove anything.

In the Quote: from Corinthians, Anathema simply means apart from Christ (lit., "banished").

There are negative connotations, of course, but that is what keeps the statement from being tautological.

We are all free to choose to be apart from Jesus. In Romans, you have to read the whole context.

Paul is actually explaining that we should not assume one prospers because God loves him, while another fails because God does not love him. Paul's thesis in this passage is that God decided, before the brothers were born, to elevate Jacob over his older brother precisely to make this point.

Paul points out that the decision, announced before their birth, could have had nothing to do with any act or omission by the brothers.

Even Paul's citation to the OT, Quote: d here, must be interpreted in that context.

I'll add that quoting single verses to "prove" some atheist point about the bible is just as intellectually bankrupt as a non-thinking fundamentalist taking a single verse literally and out of context to prove their point.

Use your head, read the passage, see what the author was trying to tell you.

Those Quote: s are from books written by Paul, so they are not exactly the messages of Jesus.

I find it interesting that most of the bible Quote: s used by the religious right come from Paul's letters, which are his personal views on the teachings of Jesus, and a lot more aggressive than Christ's message of love.

Finally a post on Reddit that tells what I've been explaining to people online for years!

:D

I am not fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic myself, but I was taught by people who are that the relevant (and really all-containing) commandment is not exactly to "love your enemies" (which would be a bit much to ask from the average human), but to "do good to your enemies" (which is at once much more binding to actually fucking doing things, and less demanding on how you should feel about evil guys). In practical terms, you would not need to love the serial child rapist, but you should feel obliged to get, even for him, a therapy and possibilities to lead a life as normal as possible without endangering the rest of the world.

I think they are wrong, but that is based on a wrong understanding of emotions.

It is based on a non-congnitive understanding of emotion in the Bible, which essentially says that emotions are something that just happens to us, rather than a cognitive understanding which implies that what we think affects our emotions and so you can be commanded to love. BTW, a good analysis of this distinction is given in Faithful Feelings by Matthew Elliott.

When he says "love your enemies", it's clearly a verb, so you take actions that love them.

You know, I really enjoy reddit because it brings a lot of fun web content.

But one of the things I've really disliked as of late is the anti-Christian, anti-religion elements that I thought was a bit too skewed.

I'm glad to see that there's something that made it to the front that's offering a different opinion.

I do not beleive in God, but I do respect some of the principles written in the Bible.

Love one's enemies, never resolve to violence to solve a problem(offer the other cheek) I rather see it as a basic set of rules which, if followed, makes the world a better place. ...And if that doesn't interest you, you can always follow these 2 guidelines; 1) Your liberty ends where another's begin. 2) Don't do to another something that you wouldn't want him to do to you.

My father is a minister and I used to attend church.

I once asked my youth pastor what he thought about evolution vs.

Creation. He told me that as a Christian, he follows the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus didn't mention the beginning of time, his ministry is centered around how we as people are to love others now.

I wish more religious fanatics would take this attitude into their lives, and not make such an annoying and, in some instances, deadly fuss about irrelevant subjects to their religion.

I agree with everything you said, albeit the language and cursing.

No need for it, but get your point.

And I agree. I left Christianity because there was too much hate.

The non-religious people (the only one's that I associate with) seem to have more honor, love, peace, giving and charity in their hearts than any religious person I have ever known. "Doing it in Christ's name", "Doing it for the sake of the Lord" and other idiotic sentiments only had me witness them grinding their teeth behind fake smiles and doing "service unto the Lord". That being said, I know maybe five 'Christians" that are just the most beautiful loving people you will ever meet.

I think they would be that way with or without 'Christ'. The hateful Evangelical, religious-right, conservative, ditto-heads with their righteous views are being so outted and exposed for their hypocrisy-it is hilarious.

So I am glad you are the hottest topic right now.

Bravo to you sir.

Who cares what anyone thinks about a MADE UP story.

We aren't discussing Harry Potter Books on Reddit like this, and both are fictional books about magic.

It shouldn't be surprising.

They are not Christians (in a traditional Bible-like sense of Christianity).

They are simply taking advantage of the large, adherent base that exists in the US to assert their influence and promote their views.

Their ideology and views are more closely aligned with the KKK or neo-nazi movements, but those groups do not have much power or influence in this country. It really is as simple as that.

They have their own agenda and ideology that is radically different from what Christianity professes, but they have to use Christianity to attain the power and influence they need to bring about policy changes that reflect their ideology.

Robertson and Falwell worshiped Chri$t.

Considering the average Christian, according to the front page of Reddit and other secular/liberal sites, is an intolerant, hypocritical, unrealistic strawman, and Christ, according to the same sources, is a hippie who tolerates and accepts homosexual acts and abortion while refraining from condoning any sin, this realization isn't surprising.

The average Reddit commentor's view of both Christ and Christians is so convoluted it's inevitable that the Christians are viewed as un Christlike. If there's one thing that pisses me off personally, it's people trying to construe the NT to somehow support abortion, homosexual acts, etc.

Not regarding the legal status or anything, but from a purely moral standpoint.

People should stop paying attention to pretend Christians who make a buck by pandering to people's worst fears and prejudices.

I've seen 100 times as many articles about Falwell and Robertson than I've ever seen about Fred Rogers, but there's no question in my mind which one had a better relationship with Jesus.

Http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/5943




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet